Balard and HeavensGate--continued

[Mark Tushnet]

Another way of putting the defense I've outlined
is this:  "In my religious understanding, Sam--the
very same person you say I killed--is still
alive--not Sam's soul, or Sam's spirit, but Sam
himself--with all the memories, feelings, etc. Sam
had, and much more because of his translation into
another container.  You can't see him, and neither
can I.  But you couldn't see St. Germain either,
and the Court in Ballard said that you couldn't
rely on that to find that Ballard had committed
fraud in asserting that he had met with St.
Germain."

At the moment, my sense is that this example casts
doubt on Ballard.  But if Ballard is right, what's
wrong with this one?